Fox Hunting is gay

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Not to go completely off-topic but I saw this show on BBC a couple of days ago about bible codes and how some guys claim you can predict the future using this code they discovered and I saw these two people on there who were from like imperial college london who were maths professors there to verify the accuracy of the statistical calculations used and i thought hay nod goes to imperial college

The women is my statistics tutor and the man teaches my Maple class

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by queball

and I also have a new found appreciation for MM's categorisation of (classical) philosophy as faggoty.

It isn't inherently fagocratic; it merely becomes so when it is applied in any context by Nod and Jonny. They appear to take it seriously, which is the road to absolute ruin if you ask me.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Not to go completely off-topic but I saw this show on BBC a couple of days ago about bible codes and how some guys claim you can predict the future using this code they discovered and I saw these two people on there who were from like imperial college london who were maths professors there to verify the accuracy of the statistical calculations used and i thought hay nod goes to imperial college

Ah, the wonders of predicting the future using the Bible/ Nostradamus/ The Koran/ Psychic Reading/ tea leaves/ chicken entrails.

(Prediction)
"In a year in the future, a tree shall grow, and upon it shall rest light and to it many horses shall come"

(Credulous Mook)
"Wow, 2001 is in the future, and if you assume the twin towers were a tree, seeing as they were surrounded by other towers and an underground complex of tunnels which could be called roots, and the greatest horses in the world are Arabian Stallions, and those come from Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers came from, and a great light is an explosion and fire, then this guy perfectly and accurately predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks!

Wow!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Ah, the wonders of predicting the future using the Bible/ Nostradamus/ The Koran/ Psychic Reading/ tea leaves/ chicken entrails.

(Prediction)
"In a year in the future, a tree shall grow, and upon it shall rest light and to it many horses shall come"

(Credulous Mook)
"Wow, 2001 is in the future, and if you assume the twin towers were a tree, seeing as they were surrounded by other towers and an underground complex of tunnels which could be called roots, and the greatest horses in the world are Arabian Stallions, and those come from Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers came from, and a great light is an explosion and fire, then this guy perfectly and accurately predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks!

Wow!

Not to pretend he actually had a ****ing clue what he was predicting but as far as I'm aware skyscrapers and aeroplanes and gunpowder (the explosion) hadn't been invented when that was written so it'd be pretty difficult for him to use the precise words necessary and he'd probably describe it something like that. If he'd said flying horses it'd be more* believable though.




One in a thousand as opposed to one in a billion.

[Deepflow]

skyscraper = massive tower...

not tree ¬_¬

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

skyscraper = massive tower...

not tree ¬_¬

I don't know who wrote that. If it was some kind of total hermit, as lots of them seemed to be back then with the writing in the caves and the not eating and the hallucinations, he'd probably identify it more with a tree than a massive tower.

[Deepflow]

so he had never even seen a church tower his whole life?

btw... any actual evidence for the "lots of them seemed to be hermits" thing... im not saying its wrong, id just rather not accept it on merely the stereotype we have inherited.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't know who wrote that.

The answer lies in the smilie. (Kim Jong-Il.)

[ChubbyChecker]

I think Vermillion made it up tbh

[1-X]

The title of this thread would have been more accurate if it added "and people who defend fox hunting are gay too"

Fox hunting is a leisure pursuit, a social occasion, a hobby. Population control, if it were necessary, could be achieved by the same methods they use for other animals. When the government wants to reduce the population of squirrels, badgers, ducks etc they don't dress up and make a party of it.

When a thug ties a firework to a cat, society is outraged. The thug gets his kicks from causing suffering. So does the fox hunter. The difference is that supporters of fox hunting have been in positions of authority and able to exclude their own crimes from the law.

Someone (cba to quote) said debating fox hunting in parliament was a waste of time. The only time wasting is all the delaying tactics by pro-hunting supporters to delay the inevitable. As for the dogs that will be killed if it is banned : the hunters shouldn't be allowed to kill them either, though I understand it's common practice to kill hunting dogs as soon as they're too old to be useful anyway. People who make a living from hunting losing their jobs - tough ****ing luck, they've profitted from cruelty for too long anyway.

WHEN it's banned, I really hope all those turds in the countryside alliance break the law, and that the law is fully enforced and they go to jail. I have the feeling most of them will chicken out, but a few idiots going down will make me laugh.

[Deepflow]

foxes deserved to be torn to pieces

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

so he had never even seen a church tower his whole life?

btw... any actual evidence for the "lots of them seemed to be hermits" thing... im not saying its wrong, id just rather not accept it on merely the stereotype we have inherited.

I dunno, when was this written? I presumed before or around the time the New Testament was written at which point yeah a fair few Christians did in fact go out into the wild and live as hermits (I was recently reading a history of these times so while I'm pretty sure I can't be arsed providing exact details as this would involve me walking the entire way upstairs).

I did google for it though!





PS o rly to 1-X

[Deepflow]

why at the time of the new testament

im not up to speed on the history of insane hermits im afraid.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

why at the time of the new testament

im not up to speed on the history of insane hermits im afraid.

Well seeing as they are predictions from the bible I sort of guessed they'd be from the time of the bible being written.

[Deepflow]

oooooooooooooooh

hermits wrote the bible?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

oooooooooooooooh

hermits wrote the bible?

damn those hermits just so damn hot.

[queball]

Originally Posted by 1-X

The title of this thread would have been more accurate if it added "and people who defend fox hunting are gay too"

Fox hunting is a leisure pursuit, a social occasion, a hobby. Population control, if it were necessary, could be achieved by the same methods they use for other animals. When the government wants to reduce the population of squirrels, badgers, ducks etc they don't dress up and make a party of it.

Not really. It'd be more expensive. That means in some cases, where fox hunting is viable, it wouldn't be viable with the boring option. So net result is more misery to both foxes, humans, and other animals, like with any "law".

When a thug ties a firework to a cat, society is outraged. The thug gets his kicks from causing suffering. So does the fox hunter. The difference is that supporters of fox hunting have been in positions of authority and able to exclude their own crimes from the law.

No different from producing meat.

Someone (cba to quote) said debating fox hunting in parliament was a waste of time. The only time wasting is all the delaying tactics by pro-hunting supporters to delay the inevitable. As for the dogs that will be killed if it is banned : the hunters shouldn't be allowed to kill them either, though I understand it's common practice to kill hunting dogs as soon as they're too old to be useful anyway. People who make a living from hunting losing their jobs - tough ****ing luck, they've profitted from cruelty for too long anyway.

"Tough ****ing luck" goes both ways, dude. Just there's less luck in total with everything banned.

WHEN it's banned, I really hope all those turds in the countryside alliance break the law, and that the law is fully enforced and they go to jail. I have the feeling most of them will chicken out, but a few idiots going down will make me laugh.

"My name is 1-X and I am an authoritarian"

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by 1-X

When a thug ties a firework to a cat, society is outraged. The thug gets his kicks from causing suffering.

Since I support legalising tying fireworks to (your own) cat, and the end of animal cruelty legislation, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Some pro-hunt people are hypocrits? Well, duh.

The rest of your post is basically celebrating the restrictive power of the state. Good luck on all of that.

[1-X]

It's not excessively restrictive and authoritarian to have laws, and deterrents to enforce them. The authoritarianism in this issue lies with the influential pro-hunting lobby interfering with the will of the people.

Queball equates animal torture with meat eating. While the end result is the same, there is an enormous difference between killing for fun and killing for food. The claim that government controlling fox populations through humane methods could somehow be more expensive than the upkeep of the whole hunting cult is both laughable and unsupported, and even if it were true, irrelevant.

And Dante, supporting the end of animal cruelty legislation? I think with both of you, it's a case of arguing for the sake of it, and that you can't really believe what you claim.

I believe that animal cruelty is unacceptable as entertainment and that society sees this as obvious (even if student-types and inbred toffs do not) and supports a ban on hunting as a step toward more civilised behaviour.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by 1-X

It's not excessively restrictive and authoritarian to have laws, and deterrents to enforce them.

The issue is not having laws. Having some kind of moral code/laws/whatever and having penalties for breaking these rules seems fairly reasonable. It is the nature of the rules themselves. A rule against murder can be justified, a rule against wearing yellow trousers cannot. I am making the argument (as are others, ocassionally) that animal rights legislation belongs into the second category, not the first.

You're entire argument seems to be "Society thinks this way, so no-one can disagree, and anyone who does is stupid or doesn't know what they're saying, and is probably trolling.".

On pretty much every subject I have written about on these forums, I believe what I say. The fact you cannot open your mind enough to believe this says a lot.

Finally, not to labour the point I want to examine one of the key arguments which crops up again and again :

Queball equates animal torture with meat eating. While the end result is the same, there is an enormous difference between killing for fun and killing for food.

Why? I can see two possible arguments for them being morally different :
1. We don't cause large amounts of pain when killing for food, whereas we do when killing for sport.
2. We need to eat meat, whereas we don't need to fox hunt.

The first issue is fair enough - but doesn't apply to all forms of meat eating. I understand (though I am no expert) that in certain types of meat preperation, pain is caused. Halal meat apparently is meant to be horrific (I don't care, so I don't read on such matters, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). So unless we support a banning on all meat eating where unecessary pain is caused, this needs to be struck off.

The second argument is the more common one. It's been addressed, but I'll repeat : We do not need to eat meat. I personally enjoy eating meat, but I know plenty of vegetarians who get by nice and easy without it. They're generally much healthier than me (with my high cholestoral diet and all). From a societal point of view, it'd be massively cheaper to feed the world with a vegetarian or even vegan diet than otherwise. Rearing cattle is horrifically expensive.

We don't _NEED_ to eat meat, but we do because it's part of our culture, and it's enjoyable. Just like the toffs with their fox hunting. Or the muslims with their Halal meat. Or whatever.

Someone else brought up the issue of empathy earlier (saying I couldn't empathise). Let's try and put ourselves in the animals position for a minute :

Son : Hi Dad, where's mum?
Dad : Something...something terrible has happened son.
Son : Wh...what do you mean? Tell me!
Dad ; Your mothers....dead
Son : DEAD? What? How?
Dad : Killed.
Son : By whom? Why? Who would do such a thing?
Dad : The family down the road...they...ate her.
Son : They did? Oh, that's alright then. So long as they didn't just do it for fun though!

Anything wrong with this scene? Yes, that's right. If by some miracle animals are "conscious" or sentient, or whatever then I don't really think they give a flying **** why you're slaughtering them. Or slitting their throats in medeival rituals, or injecting nicotine into their bloodstreams to see what happens, or to control their population. Or whatever. If they are sentient, or conscious then killing animals is wrong full stop - unless we're in immediate danger (kill or be killed style).

[queball]

Originally Posted by 1-X

It's not excessively restrictive and authoritarian to have laws, and deterrents to enforce them. The authoritarianism in this issue lies with the influential pro-hunting lobby interfering with the will of the people.

Perhaps, but taking pleasure in another's obedience or punishment is pretty sick. Law is at best a last resort.

Queball equates animal torture with meat eating. While the end result is the same, there is an enormous difference between killing for fun and killing for food. The claim that government controlling fox populations through humane methods could somehow be more expensive than the upkeep of the whole hunting cult is both laughable and unsupported, and even if it were true, irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, because it shows that no sort of goal will be achieved by animal cruelty legislation except satiating some irrational disgust.

Here's an idea: if the "will of the people" is so strong, then why don't those people pay the country folk to stop hunting? Then you'd get the efficient outcome, and the law needn't be involved. Or if that'd be horribly expensive, then how can my claim that other methods are less efficient be irrelevant? Either you're destroying enormous amounts of wealth or you aren't.

[1-X]

Dante, maybe I overdid the "will of the people" stuff. it was meant to underline that views such as yours are thankfully very much in the minority.

Queball, I said financial issues were irrelevant because the key issue was the right to kill for sport, not if it can done cheaper. (Also a slap on the wrist for me for saying I'd laugh if they went to jail. I probably would though )

Animals will always be valued lower than people. I don't disagree with that but I don't see that it justifies using them for any purpose based on that argument. Because there are some justifiable reasons to kill animals, it doesn't follow that all reasons are acceptable. Food and drug testing are grey areas, but to me, killing for fun is black and white, clear cut wrong. This may offend fine points of logic but it's the way it is.

This is an emotive issue. I simply don't like people who are get pleasure from being cruel to animals (or to people but that's not the issue in this topic). I see hunt supporters on tv and my initial reaction is that they are scum. I'm not unable to see your point of view, I simply disagree with it at such a fundamental level that I'm unshakeable in the belief that you are wrong.

I've worried myself a little with that last bit. It will pass.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by 1-X

The authoritarianism in this issue lies with the influential pro-hunting lobby interfering with the will of the people.

laughing on-line

[1-X]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

laughing on-line

MPs vote for a complete ban. Pro-hunting peers use delaying tactics, tabling more than 100 amendments to the legislation, so we have the unelected house preventing the clear will of the MPs from becoming law. The dictionary defines authoritarianism as favouring a concentration of power in (a leader or) an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

I conclude your laughter stems from "It's funny because it's true."

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by 1-X

MPs vote for a complete ban. Pro-hunting peers use delaying tactics, tabling more than 100 amendments to the legislation, so we have the unelected house preventing the clear will of the MPs from becoming law. The dictionary defines authoritarianism as favouring a concentration of power in (a leader or) an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

I conclude your laughter stems from "It's funny because it's true."

Concerning the will of the people I'd advise you to read some of these. The most recent one I found was this which shows that a majority of people do not support an outright ban on fox-hunting. As a matter of fact polls since 1997 have shown close to a 30% decline (overall) in support of a fox-hunting ban. I'm unsure which will of the people you're enforcing here.



PS If the will of the people demanded you bend over and take it up the ass would you? If no stop pretending the will of the people is how you're determing what is right and wrong on this issue. If yes I'm off to organise a campaign for the next election :ninja:

[1-X]

You're misreading me as in this case I used "will of the MPs."
I admitted I'd overused the "will of the people" in an earlier post.

In Parliament in a free vote, the bill was passed by 365 votes to 164. That's the will that should have made this law.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by 1-X

MPs vote for a complete ban. Pro-hunting peers use delaying tactics, tabling more than 100 amendments to the legislation, so we have the unelected house preventing the clear will of the MPs from becoming law. The dictionary defines authoritarianism as favouring a concentration of power in (a leader or) an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

I conclude your laughter stems from "It's funny because it's true."

2 entries found for authoritarian.
au·thor·i·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-târ-n, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
adj.

1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See Synonyms at dictatorial.


get a better dictionary mang

[KoeN]

foxhunting????!!!!


fs get a hobby, silly brits.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by 1-X

You're misreading me as in this case I used "will of the MPs."
I admitted I'd overused the "will of the people" in an earlier post.

In Parliament in a free vote, the bill was passed by 365 votes to 164. That's the will that should have made this law.

The will of the MPs is probably that they all get ridiculously huge salaries however if they passed that bill I don't think it'd be accepted by everyone as it's the "will of the MPs". It's quite possibly worse that you're now using will of the MPs as opposed to will of the people for what is the will of the MPs if not the representation (we live, after all, in a representative democracy) of the will of the people.

[Radical Edward]

foxes are shit. who cares?

[1-X]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

2 entries found for authoritarian.
au·thor·i·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-târ-n, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
adj.

1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.
2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See Synonyms at dictatorial.

get a better dictionary mang

both definitions of authoritarian are valid, and of course I chose the one that supported my use of it more closely

is the concept of words having more than one meaning a bit hard for you to come to terms with? if so, don't look up "set" in your fantastic dictionary, it will blow your little mind "mang"

[finally, in the interest of getting this thread off page 1, I won't be posting in it anymore.]

EDIT Damn, didn't notice JBG's most recent posticle.
You can't seriously be suggesting a decision made by the elected representatives has no right to become law? That's the trouble with students; they'd argue black was white rather than admit they're wrong.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by 1-X

both definitions of authoritarian are valid, and of course I chose the one that supported my use of it more closely

is the concept of words having more than one meaning a bit hard for you to come to terms with? if so, don't look up "set" in your fantastic dictionary, it will blow your little mind "mang"

This makes you picking a definition that noone else was using even more stupid. Although, I did check 3 dictionaries and none of them listed anything close to your proposed definition.

[queball]

Originally Posted by 1-X

EDIT Damn, didn't notice JBG's most recent posticle.
You can't seriously be suggesting a decision made by the elected representatives has no right to become law? That's the trouble with students; they'd argue black was white rather than admit they're wrong.

Well, the alternative is to say that a decision made by representatives has a "right" to become law, which is pretty much like saying that what MPs decide is right, which as long as we're going with a responsible idea of right and wrong is obviously bollocks.

[Dante Hicks]

Why is it that anti-fox hunting types can take a reasonable point (like giving animals legal protection) and turn it into totalitarian, unsupportable nonsense?

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why is it that anti-fox hunting types can take a reasonable point (like giving animals legal protection) and turn it into totalitarian, unsupportable nonsense?

The argument "We should give animals legal protection" is a non starter, as from a pragmatic point of view, it is difficult to justify.

The proper approach should rather be, We DO give animals legal protection, precident is set everywhere in cruelty laws that already exist. Thus, since as a society we have already placed a value on the life of animals, in THAT context fox hunting should be banned.

No point arguing that we should invent the wheel here, the status quo is that animals have degree of protection under the law. Western society has accepted that cruel and unecessary suffering caused to animals is a crime. It has also decided that reasonable or necessary suffering IS legal (Animal experimentation, slaughterhouses, etc)

So does Fox hunting fall into the former or the latercategory?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

The proper approach should rather be, We DO give animals legal protection, precident is set everywhere in cruelty laws that already exist.

That argument would certainly work in many contexts, but is unlikely to hold much weight here, as a fair proportion of people (though certainly not the majority) reject the status quo (for a variety of reasons) on a fundamental level.

When we're arguing about whether someone is ethically right or not, you either have to show that fox hunting is very like something else which we all disagree with - OR - argue from first principles. This is the good (and bad) thing about arguing on a forum with a relatively wide range of opinions. I can't justify welfare benefits to Jonny, queball, W, or Nodrog on the basis that it's an inherent part of the social-democratic state, because they'll merely point out they don't agree with such a state.

And besides, as far as I can see, at least two people have (indirectly) rejected all animal cruelty legislation, so you can't appeal to that.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That argument would certainly work in many contexts, but is unlikely to hold much weight here, as a fair proportion of people (though certainly not the majority) reject the status quo (for a variety of reasons) on a fundamental level.

When we're arguing about whether someone is ethically right or not, you either have to show that fox hunting is very like something else which we all disagree with - OR - argue from first principles. This is the good (and bad) thing about arguing on a forum with a relatively wide range of opinions. I can't justify welfare benefits to Jonny, queball, W, or Nodrog on the basis that it's an inherent part of the social-democratic state, because they'll merely point out they don't agree with such a state.

Yes, but you can’t let these people, intelligent as they are, derail a debate with their sometimes-inappropriate higher questioning and occasionally non-sequitor philosophising. There needs to be logical parameters to a debate for it to have any hope of success or valuable contribution. Otherwise the debate on the morality of Fox hunting will always end with some pseudo-intellectual, word-of-the-day calendar reader asking "Ah, but really, what is Morality?" in an attempt to sound clever while saying nothing.

You say you have to base everything on either something we all agree on, or on first principles. The problem is that someone, either through sincere belief or (more likely) through a love of being the devil’s advocate, will always disapprove of any first principles, and there ARE no basic foundations people seem to be capable of agreeing to. Thus, if you start a debate that way, then you never actually get to the issue.

There are some very clever people on this board, but I swear to God, if you asked people here if they like red or green M&Ms, half would answer “Ah, but really, what is Red?”. I don’t know if this is an effort to sound like more than we are, (for I too am guilty of this on occasion) or if people here are truly so intellectually profound and involved that they never leave their houses because they are too busy pondering the true existential nature of the door.

The debate on fox hunting is a very interesting debate, it first came up in force while I was in the UK studying, and there are a lot of points for and against it, but if you allow all debates to become neo-philosophical vagaries and navel-gazing, you stand no chance of addressing any actual issues. I find it interesting that almost NONE of those aforementioned pertinent points came up in this thread, as all too quickly it began the sadly inexorable slide into another 'foundations of the state' debate

Besides, I like Nodrog and JonnyB, but I know they disagree with the social democratic state. It comes up often. This is not a debate about the socio democratic state, it is (or should be) a debate about Fox Hunting. And whether or not you personally approve of the neo-Aristotelian foundations for our liberal-socialist modern form of democratic representation is freakin’ irrelevant.

Sorry, this just turned into a "what’s wrong with these damn boards" diatribe, but in an argument, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

K, I’m done.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

...whether or not you personally approve of the neo-Aristotelian foundations for our liberal-socialist modern form of democratic representation is freakin’ irrelevant...

How has Aristotle influenced the modern democratic state?


I have tried to give consequentialist arguments in the best way I know. I'm not sure what other aspects there are to this. You say correctly that there are no a priori foundations. But using the status quo as a foundation is just as bad. I don't see how arguing from precedent can be enlightening in this case. I doubt I many people are well informed enough on the law to argue that way, anyway. What is neccessity? How does the current law help us at all?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Yes, but you can?t let these people, intelligent as they are, derail a debate with their sometimes-inappropriate higher questioning and occasionally non-sequitor philosophising.

The problem is that the majority of the "decent" posters disagree with the foundations of the argument. I mean, looking at the post-count in this particular thread :

Dante Hicks 37
JonnyBGood 36
Nodrog 17
queball 16
Phang 13
JC 11

The "top 6" people posting here are all querying funamentally moral/ethical issues (well, not counting queball who went into various issues). I hardly say people who make up 80% of the debate are derailing it merely because the argument we're having here is very different from the one that appears in newspapers or whatever.

I agree that you can go to far in philosophising. But if you're arguing "Which M&M is their favourite, red or green" - someone replying "I read an opinion poll that says Red is best, so that's it for me!" strikes me as equally dumb as 'Well, what is truth man?" type nonsense.

There are no other more important issues relating to fox hunting - or at least, none more fundamental than the ones I raised. If you think animals deserve some kind of legal protection (or rather, if you think the laws currently in place are fair/good/whatever) then it's one way. If you don't, then it's another.

I'm aware there's also other arguments (e.g. whether Fox hunting controls fox populations effeciently, or whether job losses in the countryside should be considered, etc) but they also seem to be secondary to the ethical issue. This is not an argument about "What is a fox man?" or something. It's about whether banning fox hunting is right or wrong, and whether killing animals is right or wrong. What's more fundamental to the debate than that?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That argument would certainly work in many contexts, but is unlikely to hold much weight here, as a fair proportion of people (though certainly not the majority) reject the status quo (for a variety of reasons) on a fundamental level.

omg yeah liek the world sucks lets fight the system omg yeah hey dude how much did ur fone cost lol mine cost more u suk rofl!

on topic.

PS If the will of the people demanded you bend over and take it up the ass would you? If no stop pretending the will of the people is how you're determing what is right and wrong on this issue. If yes I'm off to organise a campaign for the next election :ninja:

This stood out when I got back to the thread as 'a good random thing to comment on'.

rule by will of the people = true democracy
true democracy = flawed
but since true democracy = the result of popular opinion
popular opinion = people support a ban

so today's tangental question (please tell me that was a word): Does true democracy lead to authoritarianism, and if so, going on the basis that since 'authoritarian' is used on this board as much as 'liberal' is used on DF3 (remember them?), are we to ignore the will of the people and focus rather on the will of those in power - and if not through democratic means how is the state to be formed without totally authoritarian means, assuming that we also take half-assed democracy (see: current situation) to be ineffective and equally authoritarian in its nature?

ON TOPIC.

assuming the following are true:

• cruelty to animals is wrong
• fox hunting causes cruelty to animals
• killing for research and meat causes cruelty to animals
• hunting is more cruel (measured by amount of pain) than slaughtering an animal (for food or population control)
• fox hunting brings no benefits to society other than the sating of bloodlust and a small niche market of the economy**
• most non-hunting reasons to kill animals provide a greater benefit to society
• laws exist to prevent immoral behaviour

can we assume that:

• fox hunting should be illegal
• the legality of other animal killings is a grey area, morally and legally speaking
• other animal killings are (please forgive me) less immoral and more productive to society
• If a line is to be drawn it can be drawn between the two points without particular hypocrisy?

** If anyone tries to cite an economic benefit i also want to see their stance on selling Tec-9s to 3-year-olds

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

• cruelty to animals is wrong
• fox hunting causes cruelty to animals
• killing for research and meat causes cruelty to animals
• hunting is more cruel (measured by amount of pain) than slaughtering an animal (for food or population control)
• fox hunting brings no benefits to society other than the sating of bloodlust and a small niche market of the economy**
• most non-hunting reasons to kill animals provide a greater benefit to society
• laws exist to prevent immoral behaviour

I think every one of these is wrong, but I'll conceed that there exist some non-hunting reasons which could be argued are a greater benefit to society. I don't think you're hypocritical.

** If anyone tries to cite an economic benefit i also want to see their stance on selling Tec-9s to 3-year-olds

It is dangerous, and care of children is delegated to parents, so it's up to them. Giving children guns is stupidly dangerous, but I doubt it'd be a problem.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

are we to ignore the will of the people and focus rather on the will of those in power - and if not through democratic means how is the state to be formed without totally authoritarian means, assuming that we also take half-assed democracy (see: current situation) to be ineffective and equally authoritarian in its nature?

I think you're missing the point that others are making (Although you raise your own point, which is fair enough). The reason why people are saying that your attitude towards fox hunting is authotarian because :
a) You are actively seeking to reduce someone elses rights
b) You are glorying in the fact their rights will be taken away

Whether everyone in the country minus one person feels a particular way, or whether 51% (or 1%) of people feel a particular way does not make something more or less authotarian. But as Jonny said you're on dangerous ground by conflating "the will of the people" with "what MP's think" with "what's right".

ON TOPIC.
assuming the following are true:

• cruelty to animals is wrong

This is where I disagree with you, but I've covered this elsewhere, so I won't waste your time by repeating it. The others point are relatively minor, and I'm not sure how you'd measure if one thing is more cruel than another. Do we have pain detectors? Do all animals pain equate or something? Is causing 10 "pain units" to a rat worse than 10 pain units to a pig?

The only other major point with your deduction is the point you make about "the law existing to stop immoral behaviour". I'd say it's more there to punish a particular type of immoral behaviour. But that's a very small point, and generally I would agree with your entire deduction if it were not for the fact I disagree with your starting point.

[Nodrog]

This whole thread is pretty pointless to be honest guys. Things are the way they are, and thats pretty much the end of it. You cant really argue with reality - you can try, but it just wont listen. And thats a fact right there.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by queball

How has Aristotle influenced the modern democratic state?


I have tried to give consequentialist arguments in the best way I know. I'm not sure what other aspects there are to this. You say correctly that there are no a priori foundations. But using the status quo as a foundation is just as bad. I don't see how arguing from precedent can be enlightening in this case. I doubt I many people are well informed enough on the law to argue that way, anyway. What is neccessity? How does the current law help us at all?

Why is arguing on precedent so wrong? We as a society have decided that Animals have certain rights. Why can that not be accepted as a given (which it is) in order to make an attemptto stay on topic?

If instead we start arguing about the 'right' of society to give rights to animals, or the definition of rights or the legitimacy of government bodies which legislated rights to animals, we get nowhere and the original topic is completely lost. Worse, the original topic will ALWAYS be lost.

Is it so hard to argue the issue of fox hunting WITHOUT attacking the legitimacy of the parlimentary system? If every attempt is made to take every argument to its widest possible foundations, then NOTHING will ever get resolved,and most issues will never even get discussed.

I am not saying we can never question status quo of course, but in any debate there are some things that have to be taken as given if you have any intention of having an actual debate.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The problem is that the majority of the "decent" posters disagree with the foundations of the argument. I mean, looking at the post-count in this particular thread :

Dante Hicks 37
JonnyBGood 36
Nodrog 17
queball 16
Phang 13
JC 11

The "top 6" people posting here are all querying funamentally moral/ethical issues (well, not counting queball who went into various issues). I hardly say people who make up 80% of the debate are derailing it merely because the argument we're having here is very different from the one that appears in newspapers or whatever.

Honestly, I don’t think those top 6 people realise that they are doing this. There is certainly no lack of intelligence in that list, and I would be VERY interested to see what would happen if that intelligence were applied to an issue, but most debates seem to be a race to see who can launch off on the most philosophical tangent. Hell, I do it too here. perhaps the top posters should make a concerted attempt to stay on topic as best they can, regardless of whether or not they agree with the basics of a social democratic state.

I agree that you can go to far in philosophising. But if you're arguing "Which M&M is their favourite, red or green" - someone replying "I read an opinion poll that says Red is best, so that's it for me!" strikes me as equally dumb as 'Well, what is truth man?" type nonsense.

I am looking for a middle ground, a debate which remains on topic, and which every post relates back to the original topic, presenting argument and evidence. There is a certain intellectual laziness to debate on these boards, because people can get away with things that in a pub debate or even conversation they would be called out on. That detracts from debate on these boards, and it one of the reasons why there is so little valuable or stimulating interplay. That and incessant trolling of course, but I will save that for another rant.

There are no other more important issues relating to fox hunting - or at least, none more fundamental than the ones I raised. If you think animals deserve some kind of legal protection (or rather, if you think the laws currently in place are fair/good/whatever) then it's one way. If you don't, then it's another.

Really? This has been extensively debated in the UK, with many really solid points brought up, yet none have been referenced here, or if they have it has been lost in they 'next-level' philosophising.

For example, fox hunting is a sport in which the upper classes participate and the lower classes tend the livery. It is a sport of the wealthy which reinforces an age old and now irrelevant caste system. Or how about on the other side, that fox hunting takes place in northern rural areas, which in the UK tend to be depressed, and due to the labour intensive nature of the sport, brings needed work and jobs to areas bereft of most other means of support?

Further, if we are going to argue the morality of killing animals, then once again we must take some things as a given. There are bounds on what society deems acceptable to do to animals. I cannot torture a cat to death in public for example. On the other hand, the deaths of animals are inevitable in our society for food or medical purposes. So once you take those obvious statements as given, you can get beck to the debate of where between those two fox hunting lies. Instead, the debate has been about the extremes. (‘No animals have any rights at all ever’ or ‘people don’t need meat, animals should never be hurt’) neither position is realistic or helpful.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

For example, fox hunting is a sport in which the upper classes participate and the lower classes tend the livery. It is a sport of the wealthy which reinforces an age old and now irrelevant caste system. Or how about on the other side, that fox hunting takes place in northern rural areas, which in the UK tend to be depressed, and due to the labour intensive nature of the sport, brings needed work and jobs to areas bereft of most other means of support?

Do you really find this sort of argument interesting? And I think those views have been expressed in the form of name-calling.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Further, if we are going to argue the morality of killing animals, then once again we must take some things as a given. There are bounds on what society deems acceptable to do to animals. I cannot torture a cat to death in public for example.

Why _must_ we do anything of the sort? I've argued with very passionate vegans who would disagree with your points about meat eating, and Peter Singer (in probably the most popular or infamous book on animal rights) would disagree with some of your other points in his Animal Liberation book.

I don't see why we "must" accept any argument of this kind. Sure, accepting the idea that the world exists, and stuff like that, sure - that's useful. But putting artificial bounds on a debate is one of the ways a lot of very stifled intellectual arenas are run. It's kind of like being in an extreme left party in the UK. At leas there though there some justification - by joining a specific political party, you are accepting a particular philosophical framework. I don't remember in the EULA for Planetarion agreeing to respect mainstream opinion or somesuch.

If we're having a debate on the death penalty (to use a recent argument) and someone posts something like "Well, I don't accept the idea we should punish criminals at all, let them all go free" (i.e. stepping outside the current bounds of debate) I have no problem with that. If I think it's a useful avenue for debate, I can reply and counter his point, if not - I can ignore it.

But simply to respond "Well, society thinks you're wrong so shut up!" is kinda weak. You seem to be confusing being off-topic with merely not following the same line of thought as everyone else. In my previous example, the person who interjects with his anti-punishment thesis is not "off-topic" (merely bizarre).

In your most recent post, once again you say that society thinks x, therefore our debate should not (cannot?) step outside this. Society thinks torturing cats is unacceptable, therefore no one should (or can?) argue that it's OK. Why not?

Aside from being uninteresting, I find that position kind of scary. My position on Communism, Anarchism, the state, housing, monogamy, atheism, evolution, etc - are all minority positions. Which ones am I allowed to argue for? Atheism globally is certainly a minority viewpoint, but is it OK to argue for that, because society doesn't know any better there? Or is there some difference? If suddenly a few intellectuals published books saying torturing cats was OK, or 30% of people thought it was fine, would I be allowed then?

I agree with your point about the debate being dictated by the extremes, but people can always ignore extreme views if they wish. I have never tried it, but I understand there is a specific forum option for ignoring specific individuals.

p.s. I'm a Class Warrior and all that, but even I find that whole "upper class people fox hunt, scummors!" argument a bit lame now. I mean, I think when I was 14 I may have followed that, but then I realised that supporting taking away anyones rights generally led to more misery for the working class. Plus, it's completley irrelevent prior to the moral argument.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think you're missing the point that others are making (Although you raise your own point, which is fair enough). The reason why people are saying that your attitude towards fox hunting is authotarian because :
a) You are actively seeking to reduce someone elses rights
b) You are glorying in the fact their rights will be taken away

a) Well, actually, that's the thing: Half the debate is over whether we actually have those rights. My opinion is that beyond a very short distance, they don't. From the point of view of a libertarian who doesn't believe (at least not to any applicable extent) in the rights of an animals, reduction of rights is the only arguable situation. From someone who sits a little bit nearer the middle on the political compass (i'm sorry, i can't phrase it without using the aforementioned abomination) and who believes in animal rights we're getting into the 'Right to murder' situation again.

b)Well, actually yes, but that has nothing to do with anything I've posted, mainly due to a personal enjoyment of those with significantly more money than me being embarrassed by the government heh.

Whether everyone in the country minus one person feels a particular way, or whether 51% (or 1%) of people feel a particular way does not make something more or less authotarian. But as Jonny said you're on dangerous ground by conflating "the will of the people" with "what MP's think" with "what's right". This is where I disagree with you, but I've covered this elsewhere, so I won't waste your time by repeating it. The others point are relatively minor, and I'm not sure how you'd measure if one thing is more cruel than another. Do we have pain detectors? Do all animals pain equate or something? Is causing 10 "pain units" to a rat worse than 10 pain units to a pig?

You started confusing my stance with 1-X's. However, i used the 'will of the people' figure which he brought up so I'm not entirely innocent.

My point which was rather muddled by its poor sentence structure was actually that the will of the people is the nature of democracy. I was suggesting that, from your (plural) viewpoint democracy can lead to authoritarianism - but that the alternative is honest authoritarianism and that as a system of government the former is mildly preferable. This leads to the point that from a governing point of view the best benchmark of morality is the result of democracy and that if the 'will of the people' figure is right it's the least worst definition of 'what's right.

As for the pain thing, I'm not talking about species. I'm working off the, albeit flawed, premise that an animal's sensation of pain is about equal to our own - being shot through the head or being run through a dicey-killy-pointy thing quickly is less painful than being torn apart by other animals fairly slowly after running for several hours and being in agony from that also. This does rely on the theory that animals experience suffering but as i have said, the mere presence of more 'evidence' makes this a better hypothesis than that they don't (ie, most animals including foxes obviously have basic cognitive functions and emotions at the very least and suffering is, one assumes, fairly high up the list of emotions to receive early in mental development.

Please note that live testing on animals (cosmetics etc) i find horrific. it is ONLY preferable to inferring the same pain and suffering on humans but is not actually acceptable day-to-day.

The only other major point with your deduction is the point you make about "the law existing to stop immoral behaviour". I'd say it's more there to punish a particular type of immoral behaviour.

..and the death penalty is a deterrent. the law exists as a deterrent rather than a means of punishment; the fact that to try to fulfill the first it fulfills wholheartedly the second doesn't make the second the original aim. My god that was a shit sentence, heh.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

You started confusing my stance with 1-X's.

Sorry, you're correct here. I starting mishing your views together which is obviously unfair. In my defence, I'm tired and really should go to bed.

I won't comment on the animal stuff since I think we're down (or close) to a "Well, I disagree!" type point. But on democracy, I can see where you're coming from. I'll just (in closing, before retiring) say that while democratic authotarianism is preferable to despotic (or aristocratic) authotarianism, for this issue (and most others) we're not forced to have either.

I'd prefer a society where people didn't actively try to take away others rights, but the fox hunting lot stopped on their own accord because they realised they look really silly. Then we could all be happy. Well, except the chickens who get ripped apart. Maybe.

[JonnyBGood]

Class is an invention of my Marxist sociology lecturer. Just fyi.





PS She's so old I think she was Engel's grandmother